Having chosen English as the preferred language
in the EU, the European Parliament has commissioned a
feasibility study in ways of improving efficiency in communications
between Government departments.

European officials have often pointed out that English spelling
is unnecessarily difficult; for example: cough, plough, rough, through and
thorough. What is clearly needed is a phased programme of changes to iron out
these anomalies. The programme would, of course, be administered by a committee
staff at top level by participating nations.

In the first year, for example, the committee would suggest using
‘s’ instead of the soft ‘c’. Sertainly, sivil servants in all sities would
resieve this news with joy. Then the hard ‘c’ could be replaced by ‘k’ sinse
both letters are pronounsed alike. Not only would this klear up the konfusion in
the minds of klerikal workers, but typewriters kould be made with one less
letter.

There would be growing enthusiasm when in the sekond year, it was
announsed that the troublesome ‘ph’ would henseforth be written ‘f’. This would
make words like ‘fotograf’ twenty persent shorter in print.

In the third year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be
expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible.
Governments would enkourage the removal of double letters which have always been
a deterrent to akurate speling.

We would al agre that the horible mes of silent ‘e’s in the
languag is disgrasful. Therefor we kould drop thes and kontinu to read and writ
as though nothing had hapend. By this tim it would be four years sins the skem
began and peopl would be reseptive to steps sutsh as replasing ‘th’ by ‘z’.
Perhaps zen ze funktion of ‘w’ kould be taken on by ‘v’, vitsh is, after al,
half a ‘w’. Shortly after zis, ze unesesary ‘o’ kould be dropd from words
kontaining ‘ou’. Similar arguments vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of
leters.